I live in a right-wing Facebook meme sharing bubble. Coming in here should strike a lot harder and more obvious if it was such a hard-left lean. Instead, I'm often struck by how intentional the discussions are in finding truth and workable angles for multiple parties rather than pushing one narrative. Heck, there are plenty of great places to get into a true echo chamber. However, when you truly break down items from things like ACA or even Medicare for All and discuss them point-by-point with folks around me, the policy points are strongly supported, and that's what is discussed on this forum. The support or lack thereof of bills containing those policies is really a branding thing, something we've discussed plenty that the Republicans have done well, at times nefariously, and the Democrats have done poorly. Heck, when you break down much of what was in the recent "abortion bill" in New York, staunch right-wingers supported 90% of that bill when broken down, but their Facebook feed labeled it with things that were wholly inaccurate and even added in pieces that simply did not exist to the bill. That leads to a person being against the bill in spite of being for nearly everything contained within that bill. The discussion here, especially the last 20 pages or so of this thread, has been centered around the presentation of the message in large part. While one could say that it ends up sounding left-leaning when discussing things like protecting the environment, providing school, taking care of our elderly and disadvantaged, and ensuring all have adequate healthcare, but those things are not radical positions. In general, they're basic human decency that has been presented in a negative light in many cases (SNAP/EBT being a tremendous example of that). So, while some may see/hear an echo chamber, I'd rather think that there are a significant amount of frequent contributors here that would identify as "independent" but in order to participate in our process in most states, you need to declare a party, so there's various affiliations due to that. Even in evaluating political candidates, the point isn't "can he beat the snot out of so and so"...it's typically "is this the candidate who represents the most of what are good policies at this time?" I'm sure 2020 will have a different flavor because of the Cheeto at 1600 Pennsylvania, but that's a very common perspective around the country when people actually look at what has been done and can remove his misinformation.